> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:23:33 -0700> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:> > > > > I'm a bit surprised to see that there is no facility for per-cpu> > interrupt threads?> > > > per handler is the right approach (that way, if one dies, all other> interrupts will likely keep working)> > now.. normally an interrupt only goes to one cpu, so effectively it is> per cpu already anyway

Yes, if a) the thread was asleep when it was woken up and b) if thescheduler does the right thing and wakes the thread on the CPU whichcalled wake_up().

The ongoing sagas of tbench/mysql/volanomark regressions make me thinkthat any behaviour which we "expect" of the scheduler should betriple-checked daily :(

> we should however make the irq threads follow the affinity masks of the> irq... that'd be an easy add-on and probably worthwhile.